***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[17seconds]

Thanks to you there are millions of new gun owners that have absolutely no idea of how a gun works or how to handle it safely. Went to a gun show in Conroe, Tx this last weekend and it was packed. I asked a lot of people what made them come to the show and a lot said they really knew nothing much about guns and were not really interested in guns BUT because of you nutbag gun grabbers they want to get something while they still can. You have let loose exactly the kind of people that you/I do not want to have guns. They are not educated in their use, have not had any training and have no clue about gun safety. I fully expect many more accidental killings aver the next few months because of your wanting to do exactly the wrong thing to America safer.

You are asking me to feel bad for a potential Darwin Award nominee?

No but you should feel bad for the kids that will die because their parents don't know how to handle guns and you should feel bad for all of those same guns that will be sold after their new owner gets tired of them. Or maybe you really don't care about the kids?

You seem really afraid that the masses have access to guns.

I sure hope they take the time to train, practice and take an NRA safety class or two. Trained and educated masses with guns are good. Otherwise not so good. When you start seeing stupid people doing stupid things with guns, this will be why. We can call it the "Gun-Grabber Effect"

I agree it's a terrible situation to have far more guns than responsible/educated gun owners. There are over 300 million guns in the US right now.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Stockman warns Obama: Push for gun control will be met with White House budget cuts, possible impeachment.

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas 36th) released the following statement Monday afternoon.

The White House's recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic.

I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.

The President's actions are an existential threat to this nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.

Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.

The President's actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger. If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.

Why do you hate the President of the United States so much? He has said he is not looking to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, but he is trying to close the loop hopes that have "helped" kill innocent children and adults? Are guns the only problem, no but they are a problem that we have and we can help close some loopholes . If you want to go back to musket days, fine, but every gun owner I speak to admits they dont need the automatic weapons that are being used kill children and adults that are just in the wrong place.

Either you are misquoting, or they don't know enough about guns to be speaking for or against them. Either way, your post is irrelevant.

 

[Cookiemonster]

You gun grabbers have managed to accomplish a few things with your rantings. 1. Prices are through the roof (already have what I want)2. Ammunition is difficult to find (already have thousands of rounds stocked)3. Thanks to you there are millions of new gun owners that have absolutely no idea of how a gun works or how to handle it safely. Went to a gun show in Conroe, Tx this last weekend and it was packed. I asked a lot of people what made them come to the show and a lot said they really knew nothing much about guns and were not really interested in guns BUT because of you nutbag gun grabbers they want to get something while they still can.

Seems to me that the guy and his buddies who use "gun grabbers" are the ones feeding these paranoid fears. Maybe if you guys didn't act like any minor measure was one step away from Hilter's Germany, these fools wouldn't be so scared.

You can't deny that ChopMeat qualifies as well as at least a half-dozen politicians who have already been named. There have been quite a few others in this thread too. About once every page somebody has to pipe in with a "Turn them in," or "Civilians just shouldn't have them," statement. I try to use the term anti-gun. I don't want to label left or right, liberal or conservative as there are plenty of people from either side who believe each way. There is pro-gun-rights, anti-gun-rights and more than both groups put together are the I-don't-care-as-long-as-it-doesn't-affect-me and IMO they are worse than the extremists on either side. Apathy is probably the biggest cancer to our society. More than drugs, crime and punishment, piss-poor parenting... At least ignorance can be fixed. Differences can be understood. You can't fix stupid and it's worse to not even care.

 

[tommyboy]

if I wanted to create something that would allow me to compile a huge sampling of the ignorance of guns, gun laws, and gun terminology in the United States I would not be able to imagine anything better than this thread has accomplished the last month. Its a thing of beauty.

 

[Cookiemonster]

if I wanted to create something that would allow me to compile a huge sampling of the ignorance of guns, gun laws, and gun terminology in the United States I would not be able to imagine anything better than this thread has accomplished the last month. Its a thing of beauty.

Then you need to try CNN

 

[Dvorak]

if I wanted to create something that would allow me to compile a huge sampling of the ignorance of guns, gun laws, and gun terminology in the United States I would not be able to imagine anything better than this thread has accomplished the last month. Its a thing of beauty.

Then you need to try CNN

Or if you Facebook-https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheNRA?ref=ts&fref=ts

 

[Apple Jack]

if I wanted to create something that would allow me to compile a huge sampling of the ignorance of guns, gun laws, and gun terminology in the United States I would not be able to imagine anything better than this thread has accomplished the last month. Its a thing of beauty.

I agree

This thread makes me happy to hear the recent Glenn Beck Idaho commune news. These guys should check it out. Idaho is a beautiful place. Tremendous, really. The Sawtooth Mountains...C'or D'lene...Sun Valley...Demi Moore...it's killer up there.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Thanks to you there are millions of new gun owners that have absolutely no idea of how a gun works or how to handle it safely. Went to a gun show in Conroe, Tx this last weekend and it was packed. I asked a lot of people what made them come to the show and a lot said they really knew nothing much about guns and were not really interested in guns BUT because of you nutbag gun grabbers they want to get something while they still can. You have let loose exactly the kind of people that you/I do not want to have guns. They are not educated in their use, have not had any training and have no clue about gun safety. I fully expect many more accidental killings aver the next few months because of your wanting to do exactly the wrong thing to America safer.

You are asking me to feel bad for a potential Darwin Award nominee?

No but you should feel bad for the kids that will die because their parents don't know how to handle guns and you should feel bad for all of those same guns that will be sold after their new owner gets tired of them. Or maybe you really don't care about the kids?

You seem really afraid that the masses have access to guns.

I sure hope they take the time to train, practice and take an NRA safety class or two. Trained and educated masses with guns are good. Otherwise not so good. When you start seeing stupid people doing stupid things with guns, this will be why. We can call it the "Gun-Grabber Effect"

I agree it's a terrible situation to have far more guns than responsible/educated gun owners. There are over 300 million guns in the US right now.

317 million as a conservative estimate, before the latest tragedy. Add in all the guns sold since and the number is probably over 320 million.Edited to add: And I have not bought a single new one and have no plans to.

 

[Apple Jack]

Thanks to you there are millions of new gun owners that have absolutely no idea of how a gun works or how to handle it safely. Went to a gun show in Conroe, Tx this last weekend and it was packed. I asked a lot of people what made them come to the show and a lot said they really knew nothing much about guns and were not really interested in guns BUT because of you nutbag gun grabbers they want to get something while they still can. You have let loose exactly the kind of people that you/I do not want to have guns. They are not educated in their use, have not had any training and have no clue about gun safety. I fully expect many more accidental killings aver the next few months because of your wanting to do exactly the wrong thing to America safer.

You are asking me to feel bad for a potential Darwin Award nominee?

No but you should feel bad for the kids that will die because their parents don't know how to handle guns and you should feel bad for all of those same guns that will be sold after their new owner gets tired of them. Or maybe you really don't care about the kids?

You seem really afraid that the masses have access to guns.

I sure hope they take the time to train, practice and take an NRA safety class or two. Trained and educated masses with guns are good. Otherwise not so good. When you start seeing stupid people doing stupid things with guns, this will be why. We can call it the "Gun-Grabber Effect"

I agree it's a terrible situation to have far more guns than responsible/educated gun owners. There are over 300 million guns in the US right now.

317 million as a conservative estimate, before the latest tragedy. Add in all the guns sold since and the number is probably over 320 million.

You understand that the majority of those are hysterical people who are already gun owners stockpiling for the coming civil war, right?

 

[cobalt_27]

Nice to hear the gun guys admitting that modest compromises such as limiting magazine size aren't enough. Really we need to look at a wider gun ban.

At least you are honest.Others would lie and have us believe there is no slippery slope to total banning.

Wider <> TotalI argue for wider. Not total. I strongly believe in the Second Amendment, and that the right to bear a firearm is absolute. It's just that the scope of the Second Amendment is not absolute in terms of covering all firearms.

 

[timschochet]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school’s campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

 

[timschochet]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

 

[Apple Jack]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

YEAH BUT 30 RND MAGS R FUN. YOU NON_UNDERSTANDING TEH AMENDIMINTS THAT WAS SINGED MY JOHN HANGCOCK IN 1776 and are impenitribbling!!!

 

[MaxThreshold]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

 

[MaxThreshold]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

YEAH BUT 30 RND MAGS R FUN. YOU NON_UNDERSTANDING TEH AMENDIMINTS THAT WAS SINGED MY JOHN HANGCOCK IN 1776 and are impenitribbling!!!

Yeah, the Bill of Rights was really more a set of guidelines than actual rights.Good Point, AJ!

 

[timschochet]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

It very well might be. If a killer is tackled while trying to reload, then the obvious answer is yes. It's nice to have an example, but I really don't need one. Anyone who wants to use even an iota of common sense should reach this conclusion. If you don't see this, then the only thing I can assume is that you don't want to see it.

 

[Apple Jack]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

Hmmm, just like Columbine and Va Tech?

You make it too easy Tim, you are reaching here, especially since there are so many different eye witness accounts.

Occam's Razor tells me he stopped shooting when he was done shooting. Keep in mind, this isn't some random act of violence typical in most massacres, he went to kill the Dean, mission accomplished. It is more likely he put his gun down when he was done with the killing and not that he was caught off guard for the 2 seconds it takes to change magazines at the EXACT moment that either or both of the CCW students just happened to return to the scene with their weapons.

A better question is if this had not been a gun-free zone (which is why I have to assume their weapons were stashed in their car) how many lives could have been saved?

 

[timschochet]

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

It really is. It's simply amazing to me.

 

[Apple Jack]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

YEAH BUT 30 RND MAGS R FUN. YOU NON_UNDERSTANDING TEH AMENDIMINTS THAT WAS SINGED MY JOHN HANGCOCK IN 1776 and are impenitribbling!!!

Yeah, the Bill of Rights was really more a set of guidelines than actual rights.Good Point, AJ!

The Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is, by design, fluid and open to alteration. Not that the magazine discussion needs to monkey with the Bill of Rights.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

Then maybe we should have 30, 1 round magazines? The density of you guys who support a law that will have no affect is amazing. Must be terrible for you to live under your desk all day long all scared.

 

[timschochet]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

Hmmm, just like Columbine and Va Tech?

You make it too easy Tim, you are reaching here, especially since there are so many different eye witness accounts.

Occam's Razor tells me he stopped shooting when he was done shooting. Keep in mind, this isn't some random act of violence typical in most massacres, he went to kill the Dean, mission accomplished. It is more likely he put his gun down when he was done with the killing and not that he was caught off guard for the 2 seconds it takes to change magazines at the EXACT moment that either or both of the CCW students just happened to return to the scene with their weapons.

A better question is if this had not been a gun-free zone (which is why I have to assume their weapons were stashed in their car) how many lives could have been saved?

As I have stated several times now, I'm willing to accept that argument. But I don't understand why you refuse to accept mine.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

YEAH BUT 30 RND MAGS R FUN. YOU NON_UNDERSTANDING TEH AMENDIMINTS THAT WAS SINGED MY JOHN HANGCOCK IN 1776 and are impenitribbling!!!

Yeah, the Bill of Rights was really more a set of guidelines than actual rights.Good Point, AJ!

The Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is, by design, fluid and open to alteration. Not that the magazine discussion needs to monkey with the Bill of Rights.

So why the Executive Orders Obama is readying? Oh yeah, to circumvent that pesky Constitution.

 

[Apple Jack]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

Then maybe we should have 30, 1 round magazines? The density of you guys who support a law that will have no affect is amazing. Must be terrible for you to live under your desk all day long all scared.

I don't own any weapons. I don't have a scared bone in my body. You're the ones sleeping with guns under your pillows. This issue isn't on my radar except for when these crazy events happen and are brought to my attention. This is just common sense.

 

[tommyboy]

in this thread we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well

we have leftist insistence that we "do something" when in fact the "something" they propose would make all of us less safe.

and we have the usual leftist assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, and/or mockery of people they disagree with as "stupid" when a quick perusal of the many leftist posts in this thread provides ample evidence of their ignorance.

this hasn't been your finest hour, leftist gun hater guys.

but since you're all convinced that guns are dangerous you should sign the petition

 

[Apple Jack]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

YEAH BUT 30 RND MAGS R FUN. YOU NON_UNDERSTANDING TEH AMENDIMINTS THAT WAS SINGED MY JOHN HANGCOCK IN 1776 and are impenitribbling!!!

Yeah, the Bill of Rights was really more a set of guidelines than actual rights.Good Point, AJ!

The Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is, by design, fluid and open to alteration. Not that the magazine discussion needs to monkey with the Bill of Rights.

So why the Executive Orders Obama is readying? Oh yeah, to circumvent that pesky Constitution.

The President can circumvent the Constitution? Well good thing there are checks and balances to address the actions of these dictatorial traitors and threats to the good sane 100 bullet magazine owners of America.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

Hmmm, just like Columbine and Va Tech?

You make it too easy Tim, you are reaching here, especially since there are so many different eye witness accounts.

Occam's Razor tells me he stopped shooting when he was done shooting. Keep in mind, this isn't some random act of violence typical in most massacres, he went to kill the Dean, mission accomplished. It is more likely he put his gun down when he was done with the killing and not that he was caught off guard for the 2 seconds it takes to change magazines at the EXACT moment that either or both of the CCW students just happened to return to the scene with their weapons.

A better question is if this had not been a gun-free zone (which is why I have to assume their weapons were stashed in their car) how many lives could have been saved?

As I have stated several times now, I'm willing to accept that argument. But I don't understand why you refuse to accept mine.

10 is an arbitrary number. The difference between a 10 round and 12 round magazine can save a life in home defense. The difference between a 12 round and 15 round magazine can also save a life in home defense. Home invasion stats are sporadic at best but I imagine in circumstances when it is not a straight up burglary (where the perp typically knocks on the door and flees at the first sign of occupancy) but instead where they are prepared for resistance (a better definition of a home invasion) you are talking about 2+ perps.Many many more lives are saved when law abiding citizens have access to high-capacity magazines (defined as 11+ based on everything being campaigned for here) compared to when they are banned and the bad guys will still have easy enough access to them. You guys cannot ignore the overwhelming number of instances for DGU -- argue about the exact numbers all you want, even the most conservative numbers are hundreds if not many thousands times more frequent than these mass shooting incidents.

It's been discussed ad nauseum that these mass shooting are less than a drop in the bucket in the overall picture, THAT is why I do not accept your argument. You are focusing on the wrong variable to fix a tiny subsection of a crime that is not even guaranteed to fix it as is shown from the two examples we keep rehashing.

 

[timschochet]

in this thread we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well

we have leftist insistence that we "do something" when in fact the "something" they propose would make all of us less safe.

and we have the usual leftist assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, and/or mockery of people they disagree with as "stupid" when a quick perusal of the many leftist posts in this thread provides ample evidence of their ignorance.

this hasn't been your finest hour, leftist gun hater guys.

but since you're all convinced that guns are dangerous you should sign the petition

You've made this claim several times, and I'm ####### sick of it. Back it up by explaining exactly how limiting high capacity magazines and demanding universal background checks violate the Constitution. If you can't do it, then you need to shut the hell up. I am sick to death of this paranoid claim. If you guys want to argue against the merits of the proposals, then do so. But stop arguing that they violate the 2nd Amendment. They don't even touch it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

How many bullets would Sean Taylor have needed to fight off 4 (possibly 5) home intruders?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Taylor

 

[timschochet]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

Hmmm, just like Columbine and Va Tech?

You make it too easy Tim, you are reaching here, especially since there are so many different eye witness accounts.

Occam's Razor tells me he stopped shooting when he was done shooting. Keep in mind, this isn't some random act of violence typical in most massacres, he went to kill the Dean, mission accomplished. It is more likely he put his gun down when he was done with the killing and not that he was caught off guard for the 2 seconds it takes to change magazines at the EXACT moment that either or both of the CCW students just happened to return to the scene with their weapons.

A better question is if this had not been a gun-free zone (which is why I have to assume their weapons were stashed in their car) how many lives could have been saved?

As I have stated several times now, I'm willing to accept that argument. But I don't understand why you refuse to accept mine.

10 is an arbitrary number. The difference between a 10 round and 12 round magazine can save a life in home defense. The difference between a 12 round and 15 round magazine can also save a life in home defense. Home invasion stats are sporadic at best but I imagine in circumstances when it is not a straight up burglary (where the perp typically knocks on the door and flees at the first sign of occupancy) but instead where they are prepared for resistance (a better definition of a home invasion) you are talking about 2+ perps.Many many more lives are saved when law abiding citizens have access to high-capacity magazines (defined as 11+ based on everything being campaigned for here) compared to when they are banned and the bad guys will still have easy enough access to them. You guys cannot ignore the overwhelming number of instances for DGU -- argue about the exact numbers all you want, even the most conservative numbers are hundreds if not many thousands times more frequent than these mass shooting incidents.

It's been discussed ad nauseum that these mass shooting are less than a drop in the bucket in the overall picture, THAT is why I do not accept your argument. You are focusing on the wrong variable to fix a tiny subsection of a crime that is not even guaranteed to fix it as is shown from the two examples we keep rehashing.

OK. We have a clarity of disagreement, which is fine. I don't think your examples prove the necessity of having high capacity magazines. You don't think my examples prove the necessity of banning high capacity magazines. That's fine. We can agree to disagree on this.

 

[Apple Jack]

How many bullets would Sean Taylor have needed to fight off 4 (possibly 5) home intruders?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Taylor

Probably just one, but who knows. Are you advocating that people on probation be allowed to own guns legally?

 

[SacramentoBob]

I think we can lock this one up now.

 

[Apple Jack]

I think we can lock this one up now.

I haven't been here in weeks and I'm having fun. Can it wait til morning?

 

[Abraham]

Many many more lives are saved when law abiding citizens have access to high-capacity magazines (defined as 11+ based on everything being campaigned for here) compared to when they are banned and the bad guys will still have easy enough access to them

. There is absolutely no way you can prove this. None.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Thanks to you there are millions of new gun owners that have absolutely no idea of how a gun works or how to handle it safely. Went to a gun show in Conroe, Tx this last weekend and it was packed. I asked a lot of people what made them come to the show and a lot said they really knew nothing much about guns and were not really interested in guns BUT because of you nutbag gun grabbers they want to get something while they still can. You have let loose exactly the kind of people that you/I do not want to have guns. They are not educated in their use, have not had any training and have no clue about gun safety. I fully expect many more accidental killings aver the next few months because of your wanting to do exactly the wrong thing to America safer.

You are asking me to feel bad for a potential Darwin Award nominee?

No but you should feel bad for the kids that will die because their parents don't know how to handle guns and you should feel bad for all of those same guns that will be sold after their new owner gets tired of them. Or maybe you really don't care about the kids?

You seem really afraid that the masses have access to guns.

I sure hope they take the time to train, practice and take an NRA safety class or two. Trained and educated masses with guns are good. Otherwise not so good. When you start seeing stupid people doing stupid things with guns, this will be why. We can call it the "Gun-Grabber Effect"

I agree it's a terrible situation to have far more guns than responsible/educated gun owners. There are over 300 million guns in the US right now.

317 million as a conservative estimate, before the latest tragedy. Add in all the guns sold since and the number is probably over 320 million.

You understand that the majority of those are hysterical people who are already gun owners stockpiling for the coming civil war, right?

I disagree with you, the majority of them are current gun owners making sure they have what they consider they need to defense their property and families. The minority are the hysterical people who are not gun owners have not given it much thought but figure it is now or never. If even a tenth of them are new gun owners you are probably looking at 3 millions new guns in the hands of people that do not have training or safety of any kind. None of my "gunnut" friends and co-workers are hysterical or buying a bunch of new weapons. A few have bought an extra weapon or two that they were thinking about getting anyway. But yes they have bought some extra ammunition and what YOU consider "high-capacity" magazines but only because they were not as prepared as they thought they needed to be. A prepared responsible gun owner has no reason to be hysterical.

 

[timschochet]

A prepared responsible gun owner has no reason to be hysterical.

This from the guy who admits to being armed with a gun every time he answers the doorbell.

 

[tommyboy]

in this thread we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well

we have leftist insistence that we "do something" when in fact the "something" they propose would make all of us less safe.

and we have the usual leftist assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, and/or mockery of people they disagree with as "stupid" when a quick perusal of the many leftist posts in this thread provides ample evidence of their ignorance.

this hasn't been your finest hour, leftist gun hater guys.

but since you're all convinced that guns are dangerous you should sign the petition

You've made this claim several times, and I'm ####### sick of it. Back it up by explaining exactly how limiting high capacity magazines and demanding universal background checks violate the Constitution. If you can't do it, then you need to shut the hell up. I am sick to death of this paranoid claim. If you guys want to argue against the merits of the proposals, then do so. But stop arguing that they violate the 2nd Amendment. They don't even touch it.

nice strawman, i didn't claim limiting high cap magazines (hey, you've come a long way since a few weeks back when you didn't even know the name of those bullet holding thingys) or demanding universal background checks violate the constitution. I claimed (directly above your response) quote : "we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well"for a quick example of that, read post 6179

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=671486&view=findpost&p=15222223

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Many many more lives are saved when law abiding citizens have access to high-capacity magazines (defined as 11+ based on everything being campaigned for here) compared to when they are banned and the bad guys will still have easy enough access to them

. There is absolutely no way you can prove this. None.

It's actually pretty easy.How many "mass shootings" were there last year? 16?How many DGU instances were there last year? Kleck = ~2 million, Hemenway = ~100k, other social scientists = ~310k310,000 / 16 = 19,375 DGU's per mass shooting in the U.S. in 2012.What percentage of DGU's do you think having 11+ rounds instead of 10 rounds made a difference?Multiply that percentage times 310,000 instances now compare that to your number of lives saved from the 16 mass shootings.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

So I was listening to Sean Hannity today (I know, I'm a masochist) and in defense of more guns, he was listing a series of events in which concealed carry helped save lives. Then he said the following:

In the Appalachian School of Law shooting, students with CCW stopped a mass shooting when the crazed gunman attempted to reload.

Obviously, that sparked my interest. When I got home, I googled the incident. Turns out it occurred in 2002, during the Assault Weapons Ban, when there existed a 10 bullet limit on magazines. Sure enough, per Wikipedia, the gunman was stopped when his two 8 round magazines expired. Isn't that interesting? You can look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Law_shooting

So thank you Sean! I'm sure it's not what you intended, but you proved my point: the high capacity magazine ban saves lives. Here is clear, concrete evidence for the doubters.

Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?

Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.

Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?

Mitchell said he heard the gun drop to the ground. It was then that students on the school's campus tried to take control of the situation. Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it.

You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.

That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

Jeebus man, most home invasions are perpetrated by between 2 and 4 assailants. In your world consider your wife and daughters raped and killed with NO CHANCE of you or them defending themselves. In my world I may fail but I would at least have the opportunity to try and defend myself and my family. I have a Buddybar on the front door when we are in for the night and a 9mm, 20ga and the Judge available for use, by either myself or my wife. The Judge goes with me in my vehicle whenever I go out.By the way just so you "gun grabbers" all know IF someone tries to enter my home our strategy is to retreat to the bedroom, call 911 and IF they get inside the home to let them know they have made a big mistake and it would be in their best interest to get to hell out.

We are not sitting there waiting for them to get in so we can blast them as most of you probably assume we would be.

 

[Abraham]

Uh, no. The only way you could prove such a statement would be by documenting the number of incidents where a shot AFTER the first 10 was the one that saved the day. And you don't have that info. Otherwise there is simply no way to state, much less prove that more lives have been saved because of high volume magazines.

 

[Hoosier16]

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

It very well might be. If a killer is tackled while trying to reload, then the obvious answer is yes. It's nice to have an example, but I really don't need one. Anyone who wants to use even an iota of common sense should reach this conclusion. If you don't see this, then the only thing I can assume is that you don't want to see it.

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

You guys live in a continuous state of denial.Here it is, one more time:

Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

Where is the part about the room full of people rushing the shooter? Does it makes sense to you to focus on the make believe rather than actual events.As you can see (for the 4th time), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.

 

[timschochet]

in this thread we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well

we have leftist insistence that we "do something" when in fact the "something" they propose would make all of us less safe.

and we have the usual leftist assumption that they are smarter than everyone else, and/or mockery of people they disagree with as "stupid" when a quick perusal of the many leftist posts in this thread provides ample evidence of their ignorance.

this hasn't been your finest hour, leftist gun hater guys.

but since you're all convinced that guns are dangerous you should sign the petition

You've made this claim several times, and I'm ####### sick of it. Back it up by explaining exactly how limiting high capacity magazines and demanding universal background checks violate the Constitution. If you can't do it, then you need to shut the hell up. I am sick to death of this paranoid claim. If you guys want to argue against the merits of the proposals, then do so. But stop arguing that they violate the 2nd Amendment. They don't even touch it.

nice strawman, i didn't claim limiting high cap magazines (hey, you've come a long way since a few weeks back when you didn't even know the name of those bullet holding thingys) or demanding universal background checks violate the constitution. I claimed (directly above your response) quote : "we have leftist ire at the constitution, mockery as well"for a quick example of that, read post 6179

http://forums.footba...post&p=15222223

Every time you make a post, you mention the 2nd Amendment. I'm glad you finally admit that it has nothing to do with subject matter. Hopefully now that you have made this admission, you'll stop mentioning it. (And that goes for the rest of you guys as well.)

 

[Abraham]

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

It very well might be. If a killer is tackled while trying to reload, then the obvious answer is yes. It's nice to have an example, but I really don't need one. Anyone who wants to use even an iota of common sense should reach this conclusion. If you don't see this, then the only thing I can assume is that you don't want to see it.

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

You guys live in a continuous state of denial.Here it is, one more time:

Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

Where is the part about the room full of people rushing the shooter? Does it makes sense to you to focus on the make believe rather than actual events.As you can see (for the 4th time), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.

Cool. We can agree mass shooters don't need them and neither does anyone else. So outlawing them should be agreeable to everyone. Good work. : hifive:

 

[Apple Jack]

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

It very well might be. If a killer is tackled while trying to reload, then the obvious answer is yes. It's nice to have an example, but I really don't need one. Anyone who wants to use even an iota of common sense should reach this conclusion. If you don't see this, then the only thing I can assume is that you don't want to see it.

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

You guys live in a continuous state of denial.Here it is, one more time:

Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

Where is the part about the room full of people rushing the shooter? Does it makes sense to you to focus on the make believe rather than actual events.As you can see (for the 4th time), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.

I'm not sure what you think those things mean in the context of this discussion.

 

[Hoosier16]

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

It very well might be. If a killer is tackled while trying to reload, then the obvious answer is yes. It's nice to have an example, but I really don't need one. Anyone who wants to use even an iota of common sense should reach this conclusion. If you don't see this, then the only thing I can assume is that you don't want to see it.

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

You guys live in a continuous state of denial.Here it is, one more time:

Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

Where is the part about the room full of people rushing the shooter? Does it makes sense to you to focus on the make believe rather than actual events.As you can see (for the 4th time), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.

Cool. We can agree mass shooters don't need them and neither does anyone else. So outlawing them should be agreeable to everyone. Good work. : hifive:

Good one. You really showed me. Way to back up the idea that a high capacity magazine ban would be effective. You look much smarter now.

 

[Hoosier16]

What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?

It very well might be. If a killer is tackled while trying to reload, then the obvious answer is yes. It's nice to have an example, but I really don't need one. Anyone who wants to use even an iota of common sense should reach this conclusion. If you don't see this, then the only thing I can assume is that you don't want to see it.

Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

You guys live in a continuous state of denial.Here it is, one more time:

Columbine:

There were no further injuries after 11:35 a.m. They had killed 10 people in the library and wounded 12. Of the 56 library hostagees, 34 remained unharmed. The shooters had enough ammunition to have killed them all.[24]

VA Tech:

Approximately 10–12 minutes after the second attack began, Cho shot himself in the head.[38] He died in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's Intermediate French class, room 211. During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[22] killing 30 people and wounding 17 more.[1][38] All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head.[39][40] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue...," Flaherty testified.[41]

Where is the part about the room full of people rushing the shooter? Does it makes sense to you to focus on the make believe rather than actual events.As you can see (for the 4th time), the low capacity magazines didn't limit the killing. The killing continued until the killers decided it should stop, just like in about every other mass shooting.

I'm not sure what you think those things mean in the context of this discussion.

I think it's pretty obvious, but your words probably say it best:

The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.

 

[Cookiemonster]

10 is an arbitrary number. The difference between a 10 round and 12 round magazine can save a life in home defense. The difference between a 12 round and 15 round magazine can also save a life in home defense. Home invasion stats are sporadic at best but I imagine in circumstances when it is not a straight up burglary (where the perp typically knocks on the door and flees at the first sign of occupancy) but instead where they are prepared for resistance (a better definition of a home invasion) you are talking about 2+ perps.

Many many more lives are saved when law abiding citizens have access to high-capacity magazines (defined as 11+ based on everything being campaigned for here) compared to when they are banned and the bad guys will still have easy enough access to them. You guys cannot ignore the overwhelming number of instances for DGU -- argue about the exact numbers all you want, even the most conservative numbers are hundreds if not many thousands times more frequent than these mass shooting incidents.

It's been discussed ad nauseum that these mass shooting are less than a drop in the bucket in the overall picture, THAT is why I do not accept your argument. You are focusing on the wrong variable to fix a tiny subsection of a crime that is not even guaranteed to fix it as is shown from the two examples we keep rehashing.

Probably your best post since I've been in this thread... and it's not a hard argument to make.

Anti-gun-rights (1): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload.

Pro-gun-rights (1): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause a defensive shooter to have to reload and be killed while reloading.

Anti-gun-rights (2): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload, preventing (arbitrary educated guess here) 10% more deaths than with a high-cap-mag in mass-shootings that result in less than 1% of US murders saving less that 0.1% of murders.

Pro-gun-rights (2): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload, preventing (arbitrary educated guess here) 10% more deaths than with a high-cap-mag in home defense shootings that could result in less than (arbitrary guess of) 0.1% increase of successful home defense shootings.

Point being (as said before) that high cap mags save and cost lives. Which is more? Nobody can get accurate enough stats to make a good argument either way. What is the savings / cost of having to carry multiple low-cap mags vs the life savings / cost of allowing them? Negligible. What is the cost of allowing the federal government to get their fingers deeper into restricting individual freedoms (pick your favorite Amendment - any one... speech, search and seizure, imminent domain)? I'm against more government control since there is not a convincing argument for or against magazine capacity limits. End of my discussion on the topic unless a better argument can be made.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Walter Williams: Americans misunderstand point of the Second AmendmentAuthor and economist Walter Williams told The Daily Caller that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect Americans from their own government — not simply to ensure hunting rights.Williams, a syndicated columnist and the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, suggested that common misconceptions about the Second Amendment undermine the gun control debate.“[The Founding Fathers'] stated reason was to allow the American people to protect themselves from the United States Congress — that is, government. That’s why we have the Second Amendment,” he said.“A lot of people are saying we should somehow control or restrict arms,” he continued. “And I would ask the question: Are we under any less a threat of tyranny from Washington than we were in 1787? And I would say no.”Rifles and guns may not be able to stand up against the government’s tanks and fighter planes, Williams acknowledged, but he said history shows that small, outmatched resistance movements can still be successful.“If push comes to shove, Americans would at least have a means to offer some kind of resistance, as people have done around the world.”Guns also help deter crime, Williams said, citing a study that rapists are less likely to strike when women in the community take shooting lessons.“[Rapists] are cowards, and if they think women can defend themselves, they’ll restrain their behavior or think twice,” he said. “The gun industry makes all kinds of interesting holsters where women can carry their guns, such as the bra holster. Guy acts like rape? ‘Well, yeah, let me get undressed, and then politely blow the guy away.’”

Reason for 2nd Amendment

 

[Abraham]

10 is an arbitrary number. The difference between a 10 round and 12 round magazine can save a life in home defense. The difference between a 12 round and 15 round magazine can also save a life in home defense. Home invasion stats are sporadic at best but I imagine in circumstances when it is not a straight up burglary (where the perp typically knocks on the door and flees at the first sign of occupancy) but instead where they are prepared for resistance (a better definition of a home invasion) you are talking about 2+ perps.

Many many more lives are saved when law abiding citizens have access to high-capacity magazines (defined as 11+ based on everything being campaigned for here) compared to when they are banned and the bad guys will still have easy enough access to them. You guys cannot ignore the overwhelming number of instances for DGU -- argue about the exact numbers all you want, even the most conservative numbers are hundreds if not many thousands times more frequent than these mass shooting incidents.

It's been discussed ad nauseum that these mass shooting are less than a drop in the bucket in the overall picture, THAT is why I do not accept your argument. You are focusing on the wrong variable to fix a tiny subsection of a crime that is not even guaranteed to fix it as is shown from the two examples we keep rehashing.

Probably your best post since I've been in this thread... and it's not a hard argument to make.

Anti-gun-rights (1): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload.

Pro-gun-rights (1): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause a defensive shooter to have to reload and be killed while reloading.

Anti-gun-rights (2): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload, preventing (arbitrary educated guess here) 10% more deaths than with a high-cap-mag in mass-shootings that result in less than 1% of US murders saving less that 0.1% of murders.

Pro-gun-rights (2): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload, preventing (arbitrary educated guess here) 10% more deaths than with a high-cap-mag in home defense shootings that could result in less than (arbitrary guess of) 0.1% increase of successful home defense shootings.

Point being (as said before) that high cap mags save and cost lives. Which is more? Nobody can get accurate enough stats to make a good argument either way. What is the savings / cost of having to carry multiple low-cap mags vs the life savings / cost of allowing them? Negligible. What is the cost of allowing the federal government to get their fingers deeper into restricting individual freedoms (pick your favorite Amendment - any one... speech, search and seizure, imminent domain)? I'm against more government control since there is not a convincing argument for or against magazine capacity limits. End of my discussion on the topic unless a better argument can be made.

I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.